Social Surprise

[Catullus64]

Scenario 1:
An orcish raiding party marches down a mountain road towards an unsuspecting village. They find their path blocked by a fallen tree. Suddenly, arrows and spells fly from the underbrush, where a band of heroes lay concealed. Surprised by this attack, the orcs scramble about confusedly, as the heroes emerge to scatter them.

Scenario 2:
The heroes have arranged a parley with the orcish war leaders. During the meeting, they are charming, respectful, and conciliatory. The orcs, confident of an easy victory, drop their guard. As the lead adventurer shakes hands with the orc chieftain, he suddenly produces a dagger from his sleeve and buries it in the chieftain's heart. The other orc leaders, surprised by the betrayal, are stunned and confused long enough for the other heroes to produce concealed weapons and cut them down.

By the rules presented in the beginning of Chapter 9 of the PHB, only in the first of these two scenarios would the orcs be surprised. Does that seem strange to anybody else? My party recently tried something like the second scenario, and the DM ruled (correctly, RAW) that the enemy would not be surprised. Is there something in any one of the books which allows the entirely plausible concept of "social surprise" to be executed? If not, does anybody have particular house rules as for how it might work? Should it be harder or easier to execute than the traditional "concealed ambush" variety?

[Malifice]

If the enemy are aware of a threat at the time initiative is called for then they are not surprised.

It is entirely possible to obtain surprise in a social setting.

That said I highly doubt the orcs were surprised.

Would your player characters be surprised if some really friendly and charming orcs run by the dungeon Master suddenly decided to stab you?

Consider a case where I have used alter self to conceal myself to be one of your friends or family. I then pull out a concealed knife and stab you.

That later case is definitely surprise.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

https://j.gifs.com/v946dZ.gif

Makes me think of this. It may work in some situations, but not all. It's more dependent on who has their guard up in a social situation I think.

[Unoriginal]

If a combat start and someone was not ready/expecting it, they're surprised.

It doesn't matter if it's because you got ambushed or if you didn't expect an attack after several hours of effective peace talks.

[Tanarii]

I allow social surprise rolls, usually deception bs insight, in rare (in my game) circumstances. Classic example: you're at a ball or banquet and assassins disguised as waiters attack.

Orcs or any other race being surprised at a negotiating table with their traditional enemies? No way. They'll be ready for trouble.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Orcs or any other race being surprised at a negotiating table with their traditional enemies? No way. They'll be ready for trouble.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. They'd be ready even if they thought they held the advantage. An exceptional circumstance might be if the party had their weapons confiscated and someone uses magic or a soul bound weapon to quickly kill one of them. That's much more surprising than one of the PCs trying to surprise the orcs by punching one of them or something.

[Catullus64]

I allow social surprise rolls, usually deception bs insight, in rare (in my game) circumstances. Classic example: you're at a ball or banquet and assassins disguised as waiters attack.

Orcs or any other race being surprised at a negotiating table with their traditional enemies? No way. They'll be ready for trouble.

Isn't that instinctive distrust exactly what the Deception roll is meant to be disarming? Fooling somebody into thinking they're not in danger? It may be easier to convince people at a party than at a parley that you mean no harm, but that could just be accounted for by advantage/disadvantage.

[Corpsecandle717]

Isn't that instinctive distrust exactly what the Deception roll is meant to be disarming? Fooling somebody into thinking they're not in danger? It may be easier to convince people at a party than at a parley that you mean no harm, but that could just be accounted for by advantage/disadvantage.

That doesn't really work in a situation where someone is expecting to be attacked/deceived.

Take an example of buying a used car.

Buy it from a dealer. Pretty much everyone expects they're going to get screwed and assume 50% or greater of all the words coming from the dealer's mouth are lies. Since the assumption is the dealer is a liar the buyer is already tense. No amount of convincing is going is going get the buyer to believe that the dealer is on their side.

Buy it from craigslist. There's probably a little bit more give here but the buyer is still likely to think they're going to be taken advantage of. The buyer is mostly sure that the seller is trying to take advantage of them, and likely distrust the seller, but they're less sure the seller is out to take advantage of them.

Buy it from a neighbor. Very few people expect to have their neighbor take advantage of them. While the risk deception remains the buyer is more likely to be receptive to manipulation/deciet.

Buy it from family. Very few people expect family to actively take advantage of them (yeah, yeah people have families that suck, but we're talking generalities here). In this situation the buyer is very likely to believe the seller and be more open to manipulation.

There's a limit to how a far deception can take you given context. The signing of a peace treaty is likely to be a tense situation and they'll be on guard. In addition any orc who's sole duty is to protect their chief is very unlikely to be completely taken by surprise. It's their purpose to react to threats their chief, regardless of their perception of safety.

[LankyOgre]

That doesn't really work in a situation where someone is expecting to be attacked/deceived.

Take an example of buying a used car.

Buy it from a dealer. Pretty much everyone expects they're going to get screwed and assume 50% or greater of all the words coming from the dealer's mouth are lies. Since the assumption is the dealer is a liar the buyer is already tense. No amount of convincing is going is going get the buyer to believe that the dealer is on their side.


I'd say this is exactly what deception covers, possibly with a disadvantage though. I've talked to a number of people that go to used car lots expecting to get completely swindled and then promise to buy a car anyway. My coworker just the other day would have walked away with a car she didn't want if they had had it in the lot instead of a cooperating lot. She test drove a car that did not have 3/4 things she required in a car and almost bought it anyway.The salesman was just that good and told her just what she wanted to hear.

I've been reading some of the Discworld books by Terry Pratchet that star Moist Von Lipwig and they show a wonderful example of a conman using deceit in numerous situations.

[Tanarii]

Isn't that instinctive distrust exactly what the Deception roll is meant to be disarming? Fooling somebody into thinking they're not in danger? It may be easier to convince people at a party than at a parley that you mean no harm, but that could just be accounted for by advantage/disadvantage.Not to me. That's an automatic success. You're very aware the opponents are dangerous and until recently wanted to kill you. There's no chance of surprise of any kinda any more than in a mexican standoff.

Edit: To be clear, the reason I said "Not to me" is judging what's automatically successful, requires a roll, or is automatic failure is each individual DMs job. Other DMs may not agree with me.

[mephnick]

Orcs or any other race being surprised at a negotiating table with their traditional enemies? No way. They'll be ready for trouble.

Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal!

[Xetheral]

There's a limit to how a far deception can take you given context. The signing of a peace treaty is likely to be a tense situation and they'll be on guard. In addition any orc who's sole duty is to protect their chief is very unlikely to be completely taken by surprise. It's their purpose to react to threats their chief, regardless of their perception of safety.

I think you might be confusing orcs with hobgoblins. :) I would imagine the orcs would be too busy hazing the poor humans (et. al.) that they're forcing into signing a peace treaty to be very alert to deception. And I don't think an orc chief who had bodyguards is likely to remain chief much longer--needing proection looks too much like a sign of weakness. (Obviously, this is all dependent on the particulars of various cultures in your game world.)

[Thrudd]

To determine surprise in the ambush situation, the party makes dex/stealth checks vs the targets' perception. They might have advantage, because they've prepared hiding places.

To determine surprise in the hidden dagger situation, I might have the attacker make a dex check w/sleight of hand proficiency vs wis/perception or maybe dex saving throw by the target. Maybe advantage is given in the situation if there had been prior successful charisma/deception checks that had the targets in a trusting mood. Success means you have surprise. After the surprise attack, everyone rolls initiative

In both cases, surprise can be determined by calling for ability checks, as the rules recommend. Unless the DM wants to simply declare that the PCs have surprise (or they don't have surprise), which is a thing they can do, just based on their judgment of the situation.

I'd tend to go with rolling checks for it, since it's more objective. The players may like it if I award them automatic surprise, but they sure would not like it if I awarded it against them in similar situations.

[ad_hoc]

An easy way to check most rulings is to flip them around.

Take a situation where the party were talking to some creatures and the creatures suddenly attacked. The DM then declared that the characters were surprised. How would the players react?

The players would likely be upset. It would also create a situation where the players proclaim they attack whatever they see as soon as they see it so they don't get surprised.

[Malifice]

To determine surprise in the ambush situation, the party makes dex/stealth checks vs the targets' perception. They might have advantage, because they've prepared hiding places.

To determine surprise in the hidden dagger situation, I might have the attacker make a dex check w/sleight of hand proficiency vs wis/perception or maybe dex saving throw by the target. Maybe advantage is given in the situation if there had been prior successful charisma/deception checks that had the targets in a trusting mood. Success means you have surprise. After the surprise attack, everyone rolls initiative

In both cases, surprise can be determined by calling for ability checks, as the rules recommend. Unless the DM wants to simply declare that the PCs have surprise (or they don't have surprise), which is a thing they can do, just based on their judgment of the situation.

I'd tend to go with rolling checks for it, since it's more objective. The players may like it if I award them automatic surprise, but they sure would not like it if I awarded it against them in similar situations.

Usual caveat for a DM asking for Ability checks applies though. A DM could rule that 'Nope, the Orcs are wary of you, and no amount of Deception/ Persuasion is going to change that'

[Xetheral]

An easy way to check most rulings is to flip them around.

Take a situation where the party were talking to some creatures and the creatures suddenly attacked. The DM then declared that the characters were surprised. How would the players react?

The players would likely be upset. It would also create a situation where the players proclaim they attack whatever they see as soon as they see it so they don't get surprised.

I'd still call for deception vs insight if it was the NPCs trying to gain surprise. I'd give the PCs/NPCs advantage or disadvantage if it seemed appropriate, and would rule the deception attempt an outright failure if the PCs were obviously wary.

In line with your point, however, I would not rule the surprise attempt an automatic success when NPCs were attempting it (absent extreme circumstances) even though I might with PCs. However, I don't see any reason this a problem: PCs at my table typically have a noticably lower bar to clear for automatic success on contested rolls than NPCs do, because making the game fun for the NPCs isn't a factor in my decision making.

[Tanarii]

An easy way to check most rulings is to flip them around.

Take a situation where the party were talking to some creatures and the creatures suddenly attacked. The DM then declared that the characters were surprised. How would the players react?

The players would likely be upset. It would also create a situation where the players proclaim they attack whatever they see as soon as they see it so they don't get surprised.
Yup.

Personally, my adjudicating surprise situations is strict:
- Unless there's an intentionally attempted ambush planned in advance by one side, and a clear case of the other side not expecting any danger, surprise automatically does not happen.
- If both of those are true, then surprise must be rolled for. The roll involved may be a variant from the usual Stealth vs Passive Perception, including involving adv or disadv or group checks etc, at my discretion.
- Attempting to surprise can never be automatically successful.

[ShadowImmor]

If it were up to me, I'd say the Orcs were surprised.

Lets face it, the Orcs have been having peace talks, no weapons have been readied, and they're about to shake hands, then BAM out of nowhere one of these random peacetalkers has stabbed the chief. It wasn't expected, and even if they were on edge, the OP said that they began to relax and drop their guard, which to me, means their not paying as close attention as they should be.

I have always used Surprise in combat by asking a simple question.

Who expected a fight to break out at that moment?

More often than not you can gain advantage in combat by playing against expectations, it's worked in history, and while not looked upon as a GOOD thing, attacking under a peace banner has happened and given the attacking side an advantage (a la surprise).

A good solution might be to have the stabber roll Initiative with advantage, and then each orc roll initiative too, any orc that got more than the stabber, is not surprised, as they noticed the weapon coming out and have reacted by grabbing theirs, so there's no surprise round against them, any that rolled lower are just standing with a gormless expression as it all happens. Then roll initiative for combat, (the PCs have to check if their surprised as well unless they talked about it before as a group and one player isn't just doing what they like).

However, I would bear in mind, if the players want to get away with something like that, let them. But remind them, that they are setting a precedent for the game, that you will then be able to do this sort of thing back to them following the same rules. So you can have someone in peace talks stab them to gain surprise in combat.

Ultimately, you've got to play to the table. If the players want it to grant them Surprise and they planned for it, sure. I'd rule it like an ambush, because I reckon if you look at the first situation in the OP, it says the orcs came across a tree barring their way, you can see a tree fallen across the road for a fair way off, and I can't think of any raider worth their salt who wouldn't think "Hmm a barricade, might be a good spot for an ambush" yet you would still say they got surprise for attacking in a fairly obvious ambush, and the stabbing from a hidden blade in the sleeve gives a lot less time to think about and react against it, hence, in my mind, surprise.

[Tanarii]

Who expected a fight to break out at that moment?My answer to this is based on evaluating three things:
Were they armed? Are they PCs, or facing PCs, in a environment other than a somewhat relaxed social situation? Can they perceive the other side before combat begins, especially at close range (standing right there)?

If yes to all, they were alert enough to the possibility of a fight that surprise is not possible when combat begins.

[Corpsecandle717]

I'd say this is exactly what deception covers, possibly with a disadvantage though. I've talked to a number of people that go to used car lots expecting to get completely swindled and then promise to buy a car anyway. My coworker just the other day would have walked away with a car she didn't want if they had had it in the lot instead of a cooperating lot. She test drove a car that did not have 3/4 things she required in a car and almost bought it anyway.The salesman was just that good and told her just what she wanted to hear.

I've been reading some of the Discworld books by Terry Pratchet that star Moist Von Lipwig and they show a wonderful example of a conman using deceit in numerous situations.


Yeah I was posting in the middle of a slow spot during a conference and didn't get to articulate my point well so I'll try to elaborate more.

The key is that outcome does not inherently reflect state of mind. Especially when faced with reality. The heart to the OPs argument is that the orcs were so snowballed into believing that they had the upper hand that betrayal by the humans actually stopped their brains from working for a round.

So in the case of your co-worker buying the car she didn't need, yes the stealer was able to convince her that she wanted to buy a car that didn't have all the stuff she needed. However when faced with the fact that the car didn't have all the things she needed, would she still have purchased the car? Or would she have even been stunned to inaction by the fact that car didn't suit her purpose?

Lets assume for the sake of argument one of your co-workers primary needs was space to pile four kids and all their sports gear into the car she was purchasing. Yes the stealer would probably be able to convince her that x cubic feet listed on the brochure is more than enough storage for her kids and their stuff. However what if she had her kinds and all their crap with her? Then after attempting to shove all those kids in there, with one kid on another's lap and still having a bag of hockey gear and catchers gear still sitting on the ground outside the car, do you think she would have been, "Wait what!?! How is it physics work this way?" Or is it more likely she would have thought to herself, "Yeah I thought so". Basically would her world have been so shaken she would have stopped thinking, unable to process for a while?

Yes this whole scenario unfolds much slower than the 'surprise dagger!' scenario outlined by the OP, but it illustrates the mindsets involved.

It's an extremely complex social scenario, with a bazillion elements that the players don't get insight into. Which is why DnD has avoided creating complex rules for it and just said "face to face means everyone roles initiative" and left the intricacies to the DM, so a successful deception role shouldn't be the sole standard to dictate the results.


I think you might be confusing orcs with hobgoblins. :) I would imagine the orcs would be too busy hazing the poor humans (et. al.) that they're forcing into signing a peace treaty to be very alert to deception. And I don't think an orc chief who had bodyguards is likely to remain chief much longer--needing proection looks too much like a sign of weakness. (Obviously, this is all dependent on the particulars of various cultures in your game world.)

Fair, but who's to say that the orcs weren't bristling for a fight and that signing a treaty would be distastful? Or that the death of their clan chief by outsiders, humans at that, wouldn't be a major slight on their clan honor? It's never cut and dry, NPCs can have different motivations too.

[Catullus64]

An easy way to check most rulings is to flip them around.

Take a situation where the party were talking to some creatures and the creatures suddenly attacked. The DM then declared that the characters were surprised. How would the players react?

The players would likely be upset. It would also create a situation where the players proclaim they attack whatever they see as soon as they see it so they don't get surprised.

I tend to have a lot of double standards in favor of players, and let them get away with things that would justifiably piss them off if they happened to them, like the social surprise scenario. Since the DM is there to create fun for the players, and not to treat both the players and the NPC's fairly, the same standards don't have to apply in reverse.

From a mechanical perspective (which I realize is not the entire picture) the social stealth option is very much the same as stealth classic: The aggressive party makes a check to conceal their incoming attack (Stealth in one case, Deception in the other) and their targets make a check (Perception, Insight) to spot the danger. Anyone who fails to spot the danger in time is surprised. Having some friendly people suddenly attack you and being surprised by it is no more unfair than having them attack you from concealment. That said, I fully concede that the manner in which the DM presents the ambush could make it feel unfair

[strangebloke]

My answer to this is based on evaluating three things:
Were they armed? Are they PCs, or facing PCs, in a environment other than a somewhat relaxed social situation? Can they perceive the other side before combat begins, especially at close range (standing right there)?

If yes to all, they were alert enough to the possibility of a fight that surprise is not possible when combat begins.


I agree with this, and I'm curious to see what everyone makes a ruling one of my DMs made recently.

We made a deal with one goblin boss to kill another goblin boss. We kill boss #2, and on the way back, our camp (in a cave) is surrounded by boss #1. After several deception checks, our bard agrees to come out and talk with them, unarmed. She walks out, we all make stealth checks, and rush out towards them.

DM gave us surprise. Not sure how I feel about that.

[ShadowImmor]

My answer to this is based on evaluating three things:
Were they armed? Are they PCs, or facing PCs, in a environment other than a somewhat relaxed social situation? Can they perceive the other side before combat begins, especially at close range (standing right there)?

If yes to all, they were alert enough to the possibility of a fight that surprise is not possible when combat begins.

I see your point, a couple of counters to it thought (allow me to play Devil's Advocate)

There's a different between being armed and expecting combat. Most police forces in the world will carry some form of weapon but can still be surprised by fights breaking out. So being armed and having a weapon drawn would make the difference, the weapon being drawn indicates intent, a weapon holstered would be normal for nearly every creature in D&D. Even peasants are likely to carry daggers or knives to protect themselves.

I would argue that being a PC doesn't matter. The NPCs don't know they're in a game (please no metaphysical nonsense :P), ask yourself, if this was a story you were telling someone else, or writing, and ignoring the fact there were players behind the actions, how would it be written? One guy takes out a dagger at the end of the peace talks and stabs the chieftain dead, and immediately without even a few seconds hesitation and surprise everyone in the room is attacking one another? Or he stabs him, the room explodes into a frenzy after everyone pauses to take in what happened over a few seconds? The second is a more realistic scenario. NPCs shouldn't get magical combat sensing treating just because they're up against the PCs, as far as an NPC is concerned these guys were just diplomats.

Again, just being able to perceive someone doesn't mean you'd be ready if a fight breaks out. The question I ask, is which parties are PREPARED for combat, admittedly, RAW they wouldn't get Surprise, but RAI there are lots of situations you could get advantage without being explicitly stated in the rules, the idea of "Rulings not Rules" implies a DM can make decision.

[Catullus64]

DM gave us surprise. Not sure how I feel about that.

Your DM's interpretation seems spot-on to me. The scenario you describe sounds like one in which the goblins have some reason to believe that the've secured a surrender, and the Deception check is simply to sell them on that.

The thread seems to hinge a great deal upon people's assessments of human character, and how susceptible people are to being deceived. My conception of reality (and thus the reality I tend to reflect when playing games) is that people deceive themselves all the time, and if you can seize upon what a particular person wants to see or believe, you can sell them upon some pretty outlandish things. Depending on the finesse of the deceiver, this can extend even to willful ignorance of danger. Factors of individual and circumstance may make such manipulation harder, but something being harder is what we have advantage and disadvantage for.

[Tanarii]

I agree with this, and I'm curious to see what everyone makes a ruling one of my DMs made recently.

We made a deal with one goblin boss to kill another goblin boss. We kill boss #2, and on the way back, our camp (in a cave) is surrounded by boss #1. After several deception checks, our bard agrees to come out and talk with them, unarmed. She walks out, we all make stealth checks, and rush out towards them.

DM gave us surprise. Not sure how I feel about that.Not under RAW without DM intervention to change the check in someway. Because surprise is determined by an entire side, and the Bard was clearly visible. A single failed stealth check by any threat (using the default surprise rules) is sufficient that you are not surprised, and the Bard could not make a check.

That said, the rules aren't clear what happens if you've got separate groups, which you effectively had in this situation. OTOH it seems that in order to be surprised, you need to be unaware of any potential threat. So what I said above *should* still hold. They're aware of the Bard, no possibility of surprise (via Stealth).

They could still stealth to get advantage on their ranged attacks though.


I see your point, a couple of counters to it thought (allow me to play Devil's Advocate)

There's a different between being armed and expecting combat. Most police forces in the world will carry some form of weapon but can still be surprised by fights breaking out. So being armed and having a weapon drawn would make the difference, the weapon being drawn indicates intent, a weapon holstered would be normal for nearly every creature in D&D. Even peasants are likely to carry daggers or knives to protect themselves.Clearly the rules don't require you have weapons drawn to determine intent, and I think we both would think that's a little silly. But I take your point that there's no particular reason that we should determine intent purely by "armed". But I was thinking of more than a dagger or knife. Conversely, Monks and many casters routinely aren't armed anyway. In a situation where someone is intentionally carrying a non-peacebonded weapon, to me that indicates a clear positive intent and level of awareness, but the opposite is not necessarily true. But I can see where you might not agree.


I would argue that being a PC doesn't matter.It matters because the game is about the PCs to a large degree. So any ruling involved needs to be consistent both ways, and not screw them over when they are on the receiving end of it.


Again, just being able to perceive someone doesn't mean you'd be ready if a fight breaks out. The question I ask, is which parties are PREPARED for combat, admittedly, RAW they wouldn't get Surprise, but RAI there are lots of situations you could get advantage without being explicitly stated in the rules, the idea of "Rulings not Rules" implies a DM can make decision.I agree it's a question of preparedness. My rulings on it is fairly strict on the preparedness front and makes surprise somewhat difficult to achieve. I'm arguing from a position of "this is my personal way of ruling on preparedness for combat affecting the ability to get surprise". In the OP's situation I'd say automatically no surprise.

[ad_hoc]

I tend to have a lot of double standards in favor of players, and let them get away with things that would justifiably piss them off if they happened to them, like the social surprise scenario. Since the DM is there to create fun for the players, and not to treat both the players and the NPC's fairly, the same standards don't have to apply in reverse.

That is not an unreasonable approach to the game. The PCs are the protagonists in an action story. (Though I do disagree with your representation of the DM. I believe that all people at the table are there to create fun for each other. The only exception would be if the DM (or player) were paid for providing entertainment.)

2 things to consider:

1. This will encourage PCs to aim for this outcome whenever they encounter other creatures. An egregious example of this would allowing players to describe how they are attacking in order to deal more damage. I was in a game once where a player said: "I attack by raising my axe up as high as I can and then I bring it down on the enemy." This was all well and good except once he hit he said; "how much extra damage do I do because I get extra force for raising it up?" He was a new player and the DM explained that the damage die represents landing a good blow. If the DM instead ruled extra damage then this is what would happen in every attack, becoming tedious rather than fun.
2. The players may find these rulings to make the game less challenging and/or the decision space more constrained. Benefiting the characters is not equal to creating fun for the players.


If this is a thing that people want to do I would suggest this: Provide advantage to the characters on their initiative as the enemy creatures are caught off guard. Surprise is reserved for being caught entirely unawares.

[Malifice]

If it were up to me, I'd say the Orcs were surprised.

Lets face it, the Orcs have been having peace talks, no weapons have been readied, and they're about to shake hands, then BAM out of nowhere one of these random peacetalkers has stabbed the chief. It wasn't expected, and even if they were on edge, the OP said that they began to relax and drop their guard, which to me, means their not paying as close attention as they should be.

Dude they're Orcs.

They live in a society where that kind of treachery and violence is commonplace.

I mean, if the DM pulled that in reverse to you (the Orcs seem friendly guys... BAM SURPRISE!) wouldnt you argue that there was no way in hell your PC would be trusting Orcs, let alone ones you've only just met?

If no sane PC would trust a bunch of Orcs, why are the Orcs trusting anyone else? They live with deception, murder and treachery as a daily freaking occurrence!

[Xetheral]

Dude they're Orcs.

They live in a society where that kind of treachery and violence is commonplace.

I mean, if the DM pulled that in reverse to you (the Orcs seem friendly guys... BAM SURPRISE!) wouldnt you argue that there was no way in hell your PC would be trusting Orcs, let alone ones you've only just met?

If no sane PC would trust a bunch of Orcs, why are the Orcs trusting anyone else? They live with deception, murder and treachery as a daily freaking occurrence!

I would imagine the Orcs are likely to trust in their own superiority when they believe they've subjugated a foe. That over-confidence is fertile ground for deception and social engineering.

[Malifice]

I would imagine the Orcs are likely to trust in their own superiority when they believe they've subjugated a foe. That over-confidence is fertile ground for deception and social engineering.

Because orcs arent likely to beat a foe, demonstrate treachery, or expect the same treatment in return?

Its literally all they know.

Encountering some Orcs in a dungeon, lowering weapons and talking to them for a bit before attacking them only delays initiative as far as im concerned. Same deal if you're ambassadors sent to an Orc villiage to convince them to stop raiding.

Vice versas if an Orc ambasador from the local marauding villiage or a prisoner or whatever was in the PCs care. I expect the PCs to be wary of the Orc, and I wouldnt make them surprised.

[Isaire]

Well.. leaving the orcs for a moment, what are the party expecting in situation 2? Even if they agreed beforehand to betray the agreement, did they have a signal or know at which exact moment the attack would be started?

Maybe you can catch some people off guard right at the moment (not necessarily RAW), but I think the party would be as surprised as the orcs. So it might only be the attacking party member who is not surprised, and everyone else present is surprised. Which is rather the same as resolving the first attack out of initiative order and then no one being surprised I suppose..

If the party had a signal for the exact moment of betrayal, perhaps they could react more quickly. A cough or two before the critical moment, or similar, you get the idea. Something to consider.

[Xetheral]

Because orcs arent likely to beat a foe, demonstrate treachery, or expect the same treatment in return?

Its literally all they know.

If treachery never works against orcs, then why is their society so full of it? I think a society full of treachery is evidence that it does work on members of that society, you just have to be good at it.

For example, even against orcs wary for treachery, fooling them might be as simple as tricking them into thinking they've already detected and stopped your inevitable betrayal.

[Tanarii]

Treachery doesn't necessarily mean mechanical surprise.

The opposite may often be true though.

[Malifice]

If treachery never works against orcs, then why is their society so full of it? I think a society full of treachery is evidence that it does work on members of that society, you just have to be good at it.

For example, even against orcs wary for treachery, fooling them might be as simple as tricking them into thinking they've already detected and stopped your inevitable betrayal.

For surprise, the opponents need to be totally unawares. As in have totally let their guard down.

If your Warlock was using Mask of Many faces (and Deception) or a Doppleganger etc to fool a creature that you were a loved one, or a friend non combatant of some sort, then yeah sure; surprise.

But in a situation of negotiations/ parley with a potentially hostile creature, the answer is generally no (and sometimes maybe with some kind of ability check).

A good rule of thumb to use is 'Would your players be cool letting Gorgak the Ork warrior who they met earlier that day watch over them as they sleep?' If the answer is no, then the PCs obviously havent let their guard down around old Gorgak, and he isnt getting surprise on them in any kind of social encounter.

Same applies in reverse.

Ill simply ask the player: Does your PC trust this NPC to the point he has totally let his guard down around them, or has no reason to have it up with this NPC in the first place? If the PC answers 'Yes' then I'll let the PC be surprised.

And again, the same applies in reverse.

[ShadowImmor]

I get the feeling the point we're all disagreeing over is specifically,

What constitutes Surprise?

Is it, being completely unaware of an attack?

Or is it a few second delay in reacting because something happened you weren't expecting?

It seems to me everyone saying no surprise is sticking to the first definition and everyone saying get surprise is sticking to the second.

And honestly, there's no right answer, that's up to the DM. We can quote RAW/RAI all we like, saying "The book only says you get surprise if you are completely unaware" (I would dispute in the OP in the second situation that the Orcs would be COMPLETELY unaware, as has been pointed out treachery is normal, so an ambush could be completed expected, so you could even argue the wouldn't be surprised then but that's perhaps another point entirely), or "If they are not explicitly prepared for an attack they get surprised." But the DM decides if the Orcs get surprised and the players should accept the DM's ruling.

I don't personally believe when 5e was written they meant that you can ONLY get surprise in very EXPLICIT circumstances, and if they did, I feel they missed a trick. I feel the explanation in the book is to give an idea of what can constitute surprise and then allow the DM to make their own determination.

From my understanding the philosophy behind 5e is "Rulings not Rules" as an extension of that, you can assume any situation not explicitly covered in the rules is up to DM's choice, and it all depends on how prepared for betrayal these Orcs are. In my Homebrew world, there is an Orcish nation that includes orcs and goblins that are in a strict Honour Bound Tribal society, so attacking under a banner of peace is completely unthinkable, in my world, the orcs would be surprised by that, (I would perhaps give them some bonuses similar to Raging if they were attacked in such a manner as it goes against their fundamental laws), but in this world the Orcs might already be planning on betraying the party, and the PCs just got their first, in which case they wouldn't be surprised.

All depends on the Orcs and the attitudes they have/what the DM says really, and all the opinions in the world won't necessarily be able to (or should be able to) change that.

[Xetheral]

A good rule of thumb to use is 'Would your players be cool letting Gorgak the Ork warrior who they met earlier that day watch over them as they sleep?' If the answer is no, then the PCs obviously havent let their guard down around old Gorgak, and he isnt getting surprise on them in any kind of social encounter.

I think ShadowImmor hit the nail on the head: we are definitely using totally different definitions of what constitutes surprise. I award it whenever one side unilaterally starts combat in a way that catches the other side momentarily off-guard. It's obviously harder to catch prepared foes off-guard (which calls for application of advantage/disadvantage on the ability check), but it's very difficult for anyone to be simultaneously prepared for every way combat can start, so with good tactics and some luck it's usually at least possible.

When surprise is (potentially) achievable in a wide range of circumstances it incentives the players to think tactically in how they approach encounters before hostilities begin. If surprise is generally impossible without an ambush, that removes an entire tactical dimension in many encounters. (Ambushes are still more effective in reliably gaining surprise, since the ability check is more likely to succeed, or even be an auto-success if the opponents are busy and can't use passive perception.)

[ad_hoc]

From my understanding the philosophy behind 5e is "Rulings not Rules" as an extension of that, you can assume any situation not explicitly covered in the rules is up to DM's choice,

Anyone can do anything in any game. The question is whether it makes for a fun game.

I believe the conditions of surprise in the rules are set that way for a reason. I wouldn't want to play in a game where surprise occurs when a character is aware of other creatures.

At most I can see granting advantage on initiative. That is what advantage and disadvantage are for. Circumstantial bonuses or drawbacks.

[ShadowImmor]

Anyone can do anything in any game. The question is whether it makes for a fun game.

I believe the conditions of surprise in the rules are set that way for a reason. I wouldn't want to play in a game where surprise occurs when a character is aware of other creatures.

At most I can see granting advantage on initiative. That is what advantage and disadvantage are for. Circumstantial bonuses or drawbacks.

That's why I'm saying it needs to be left up to the DM. Personally, I would want to reward them planning this in advance, but it then opens up that people will stop believing them when they try and make peace as last time, they attacked under the banner of peace.

But I'm getting a little off point there. It goes back to me point as to What do you consider Surprise? Is it the few seconds of fumbling after you chieftain has just been murdered? Or does it need literally need to be you CANNOT see the other person before they initiate? If it's the latter, how do you define whether a Rogue is "Hidden" during combat? Surely he can't ever be truly hidden if his enemies are expecting him to attack, and there by not gain advantage on attacks they don't see coming, because they are in combat, it is to be expected! That makes the idea of a Rogue hiding in Combat useless, as you could never gain advantage for being hidden unless it was your first attack during combat and you were unseen at the beginning, which strikes me as the opposite of what was intended when they gave Rogues the ability to use a bonus action to Dash, Disengage or Hide. Why let them Hide if there weren't supposed to be some sort of benefit from it? (I know they need something to hide behind, but even so, the intention is that they can hide in combat and be sneaky to gain an Advantage over their enemies while there enemies are EXPECTING to be attacked, they can still do it stealthily enough to gain advantage).

However, I do think giving all the PCs advantage on initiative is an excellent half way choice (after the attack is made, so in the OP the person stabbing the chieftain effectively gets a surprise round on everybody that they used to stab the chieftain).

[Maelynn]

My ruling would be simple. Perhaps I'm thinking a bit too simple, though.

Given the nature of Orcs, as already described at length in this thread, I'd rule they're considered Alert (much like the feat) when in situations with potential threats. The presence of enemies, even while successfully negotiating a peace treaty, is one such situation.

[ShadowImmor]

My ruling would be simple. Perhaps I'm thinking a bit too simple, though.

Given the nature of Orcs, as already described at length in this thread, I'd rule they're considered Alert (much like the feat) when in situations with potential threats. The presence of enemies, even while successfully negotiating a peace treaty, is one such situation.

I like it. It's simple, explains why, makes sense, is within RAW, and RAI. I think that's a very good answer, and it justifies both Rules and Story wise why they wouldn't get a surprise round.

I know I haven't said it yet, but RAW, I do agree with everyone who says they don't get a Surprise Round.

However, RAI, I don't believe they meant to be all encompassing (i.e. the rule covers every possibility) with ANY of their rules for 5e.

So in the difference between RAW and RAI, that space, is where the DM lives and makes his decisions. I like seeing why people justify it one way or the other and what mechanical/story reasons they give for it. Like Maelynn's answer I've quoted, I feel is excellent, and even if I wouldn't make the ruling myself, I would happily accept that as a player.

[Tanarii]

Mechanically Surprise is getting thee drop on the other side that they can't even act for more than the next 6 seconds.

Not worry about reactions for that definition, let's not get too nitpick-y here. :smallwink:

We also have two examples of surprise given in the PHB:
- players sneaking up on and ambushing bandits
- a gelatinous cube dropping down on PCs

In both cases, the mere potential for surprise is because the other side is totally unaware of a specific threat. Being alert and aware for generalized danger is what allows them to use passive perception to possibly notice threats (chapter 8 p182), but not knowing the specific threat is there is why there is a check.

Translating this into social surprise, it means the target of the social ambush must not be aware of the specific threat. If enemy can see the guy right there as a potential threat, no amount of "I suddenly pull my sword and stab him" is going to make a difference for 6 seconds of not acting. Instead you might react slower than the sword pulling guy (roll lower initiative) or you might react faster (pull your own weapon faster in response and stab back).

Now if you've got archers behind the screens ready to unleash a hail of death when you pick your nose, then surprise check is appropriate. If waiter-assassins are going to pull a dagger and stab you while you're engrossed in a conversation with the High Muckety-Muck of Poobah Town in a social setting where you have no reasonable cause to expect a specific danger, it might be appropriate to use a Charisma (Disguise Kit) vs Wisdom (Insight).

But Orcs sitting at a negotiating table with their human enemies, with warriors from both sides standing around suspiciously starting at each other waiting for something to go down? No way. (And don't try to tell me it's going to be all flowers and doves with Orcs or Goblins involved.)

[KRSW]

A reminder about surprise is that not all enemies have to be surprised. A surprised enemy just loses their first turn of combat, the game happens normally otherwise. Maybe the orc chieftain knew they would attack because hes not a total moron. His orc bodyguards might be total morons and do not suspect anything at all.

Another example is when, like others have said, an enemy or player has the Alert feat. Their party members can still be surprised. However, when that happens they still act normally and their teammates lose their turn.

[Tanarii]

A reminder about surprise is that not all enemies have to be surprised. A surprised enemy just loses their first turn of combat, the game happens normally otherwise. Maybe the orc chieftain knew they would attack because hes not a total moron. His orc bodyguards might be total morons and do not suspect anything at all.

Conversely, to be surprised a specific enemy individual must not be aware of, or become aware of via the check, any threat on the other side. A single specific threat on the other side they are aware of means they can't be surprised.

Note that the rules assume two sides. They don't tell us if three sides means you must be unaware and fail your checks vs all possible threats from all other sides, or not. I assume that's the rule but it's not specified.

[KRSW]

Conversely, to be surprised a specific enemy individual must not be aware of, or become aware of via the check, any threat on the other side. A single specific threat on the other side they are aware of means they can't be surprised.

Note that the rules assume two sides. They don't tell us if three sides means you must be unaware and fail your checks vs all possible threats from all other sides, or not. I assume that's the rule but it's not specified.

Definitely up to the dungeon master, however if say a player were distracting a guard and another player walks up behind said guard and stabs him in the neck. I would allow the guard a perception roll to see if they know the other player is behind them. If they fail, surprise happens as normal because I would not say the distracting player is seen as a threat. If they succeed then obviously they turn around and say what are you doing and may get a few insight rolls based on circumstance.

[Malifice]

That's why I'm saying it needs to be left up to the DM. Personally, I would want to reward them planning this in advance, but it then opens up that people will stop believing them when they try and make peace as last time, they attacked under the banner of peace.

But I'm getting a little off point there. It goes back to me point as to What do you consider Surprise? Is it the few seconds of fumbling after you chieftain has just been murdered? Or does it need literally need to be you CANNOT see the other person before they initiate? If it's the latter, how do you define whether a Rogue is "Hidden" during combat? Surely he can't ever be truly hidden if his enemies are expecting him to attack, and there by not gain advantage on attacks they don't see coming, because they are in combat, it is to be expected! That makes the idea of a Rogue hiding in Combat useless, as you could never gain advantage for being hidden unless it was your first attack during combat and you were unseen at the beginning, which strikes me as the opposite of what was intended when they gave Rogues the ability to use a bonus action to Dash, Disengage or Hide. Why let them Hide if there weren't supposed to be some sort of benefit from it? (I know they need something to hide behind, but even so, the intention is that they can hide in combat and be sneaky to gain an Advantage over their enemies while there enemies are EXPECTING to be attacked, they can still do it stealthily enough to gain advantage).

However, I do think giving all the PCs advantage on initiative is an excellent half way choice (after the attack is made, so in the OP the person stabbing the chieftain effectively gets a surprise round on everybody that they used to stab the chieftain).


Surprise is more than a moments hesitation mate. Thats modelled by rolling a bad Dexterity (initiative) check.

Surprise is literally getting caught with your pants down, totally blindsided. Stumbling into an ambush totally unawares kind of thing. Unless you're exceptionally alert (i.e. the feat) you cant do anything at all for several seconds (including taking reactions like responding with shield or deflect arrows or counterspell).

Being surprised in 5E is a death sentence. Its much harsher than it was in 4E and and 3E. Its a whole rounds worth of attacks from your enemies, including not being able to take reactions against those attacks half the time.

If my PC was surprised in a social setting that to me is the DM telling me 'Your PC totally trusts this NPC and is not expecting any hostilities.' I'll be the one to tell him that unless its obvious (Doppleganger of a person I trust etc).

I dont impose it on my players for the same reason. Unless they are totally caught with their pants down, its not surprise. An NPC that they've met in a dungeon and are talking to at arms length (even cordially)? Not a chance in hell it gets surprise in this situation.

[Tanarii]

Definitely up to the dungeon master, however if say a player were distracting a guard and another player walks up behind said guard and stabs him in the neck. I would allow the guard a perception roll to see if they know the other player is behind them. If they fail, surprise happens as normal because I would not say the distracting player is seen as a threat. If they succeed then obviously they turn around and say what are you doing and may get a few insight rolls based on circumstance.I wouldn't allow surprise in that case. The other player just gets advantage on their attack when their turn comes around for not being noticed.

Surprise means you're so unprepared for any potential threat from any direction that you lose your first 6 seconds of actions. In the example you're giving, the guard should already be aware of the potential threat from the distracting PC. All that PC is doing is allowing the other PC to make a Hide check while being out in the open, which they normal wouldn't be able to do.

[KRSW]

I wouldn't allow surprise in that case. The other player just gets advantage on their attack when their turn comes around for not being noticed.

Surprise means you're so unprepared for any potential threat from any direction that you lose your first 6 seconds of actions. In the example you're giving, the guard should already be aware of the potential threat from the distracting PC. All that PC is doing is allowing the other PC to make a Hide check while being out in the open, which they normal wouldn't be able to do.

You are right, I think we agree. The roll I was talking about would be Guard's Perception vs PC Stealth so pretty much what you are saying.

Looking back, I think yours makes more sense because the player shouldn't get a full round of attacks say if a fighter made the stealth roll they shouldn't be able to action surge and make 4+ attacks without the guard at least being able to roll initiative, something they would technically be able to do if they got a surprise round.

How would you rule something like a fighter, affected by a haste and fly spell. Depending on how you interpret fly + haste he would either have still only 60 ft fly speed or 120ft fly speed. Regardless he can move 120+ ft and still attack. If the creature he was attacking was more than 120ft away and unaware of him before he started moving would you give them surprise? Or is it too ridiculous to be able to do that preemptively.

[ad_hoc]

However, I do think giving all the PCs advantage on initiative is an excellent half way choice (after the attack is made, so in the OP the person stabbing the chieftain effectively gets a surprise round on everybody that they used to stab the chieftain).

Attacks should definitely not be able to be made without first rolling initiative.

The surprised creature should get a chance to have a turn (thus no longer being surprised and able to use a reaction).

Also, there is no such thing as a surprise round in 5e.

[Thrudd]

Attacks should definitely not be able to be made without first rolling initiative.

The surprised creature should get a chance to have a turn (thus no longer being surprised and able to use a reaction).

Also, there is no such thing as a surprise round in 5e.

That's not true. The definition of being surprised is that you miss your first turn, even if initiative has been rolled. By RAW, surprise is determined individually now and not per-side (because perception and initiative are now also individually determined). Surprise is possible if one party was trying to be stealthy and the other party fails to notice them (with perception checks). If you're surprised you can't move or take an action on your first turn of combat or make any reactions.

[ad_hoc]

That's not true. The definition of being surprised is that you miss your first turn, even if initiative has been rolled. By RAW, surprise is determined individually now and not per-side (because perception and initiative are now also individually determined). Surprise is possible if one party was trying to be stealthy and the other party fails to notice them (with perception checks). If you're surprised you can't move or take an action on your first turn of combat or make any reactions.

You should read the surprise rules again.

I think they are the most misunderstood in 5e. Probably because people read them with prior assumptions.


Well, actually you've got it right there. Read what you wrote again.

"That's not true. The definition of being surprised is that you miss your first turn"

"If you're surprised you can't move or take an action on your first turn of combat or make any reactions."

You just wrote both of these things.

[Tanarii]

That's not true.

Nothing he said was not true.

Attacks should never come before initiative is rolled.

There is no surprise round in 5e.

And following from these two statements, surprised creatures should be allowed to roll initiative, and get their first turn.

Furthermore: Surprised creatures do not lose a turn. They lose the ability to take reactions before their first turn, and they lose the ability to take actions on their first turn.

When you put it all together: Since there is no surprise round and attacks should never come before initiative is rolled, surprised creatures always have a chance to roll high on their initiative, getting their turn before any enemies, thus allowing them to take a reaction from that point on until their next turn. They lose their actions, but not the turn.

[Thrudd]

You should read the surprise rules again.

I think they are the most misunderstood in 5e. Probably because people read them with prior assumptions.


Well, actually you've got it right there. Read what you wrote again.

"That's not true. The definition of being surprised is that you miss your first turn"

"If you're surprised you can't move or take an action on your first turn of combat or make any reactions."

You just wrote both of these things.
There is such a thing as being surprised, it sounded like you were saying there wasn't. Surprise gives the surpiser the ability to act before the surprisee, however they are describing it through rules-language. To me, that is the same as "missing a turn". If the surprised gets to react to the surpriser, there might as well be no surprise. Your initiative order shouldn't matter. I disagree with the reading that gives you the ability to take reactions before or during the time the surprise action is delivered.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is such a thing as being surprised, it sounded like you were saying there wasn't. Surprise gives the surpiser the ability to act before the surprisee, however they are describing it through rules-language. To me, that is the same as "missing a turn". If the surprised gets to react to the surpriser, there might as well be no surprise. Your initiative order shouldn't matter. I disagree with the reading that gives you the ability to take reactions before or during the time the surprise action is delivered.

Disagree if you wish, but that's RAW. Initiative happens before combat, surprised creatures can react after their turn. No free rounds.

[Tanarii]

Disagree if you wish, but that's RAW. Initiative happens before combat, surprised creatures can react after their turn. No free rounds.
Yeah, the rule is crystal clear (for once):
"If you're surprised, you can't move or take an action on your first turn of the combat, and you can't take a reaction until that turn ends."
PHB p189

[Lunali]

Disagree if you wish, but that's RAW. Initiative happens before combat, surprised creatures can react after their turn. No free rounds.

This is why I would usually allow the first attack (and only the first attack) to happen before initiative is rolled. As before then, there's nothing for people to react to so it doesn't matter how good their reactions are. After that, the side that had planned it would likely get advantage on their initiative but it would really have to be unexpected for anyone to actually be surprised.

[Tanarii]

This is why I would usually allow the first attack (and only the first attack) to happen before initiative is rolled. As before then, there's nothing for people to react to so it doesn't matter how good their reactions are. After that, the side that had planned it would likely get advantage on their initiative but it would really have to be unexpected for anyone to actually be surprised.
Unless the attacker is totally unseen and unbearable and the person they are attacking doesn't know they are there, and most likely is at very long range, this makes no sense. There is always a chance they will react faster than the person trying to initiate the attack, see or hear it start and be quicker on the draw.

If the attacker is all those, then there is the possibility of surprise, or advantage on the attack.

If the defender has a way to negate surprise and act first, such as a 7th level Barbarian raging and also winning initiative, they're just that good. They react a split second before the attack comes in and take any action consistent with knowing danger is incoming but not knowing the precise danger.

In more mechanical terms, allowing attacks outside of initiative is one of the most anti-player house rules you can make. Provided you apply it fairly both directions, of course.

[Lunali]

Unless the attacker is totally unseen and unbearable and the person they are attacking doesn't know they are there, and most likely is at very long range, this makes no sense. There is always a chance they will react faster than the person trying to initiate the attack, see or hear it start and be quicker on the draw.

If there's a decent number of people around, there's almost no chance of being able to pull off the deception/stealth and slight of hand checks to make the initial attack undetected. That said, if you do manage it, you should be rewarded by actually getting to make the attack.

[Tanarii]

If there's a decent number of people around, there's almost no chance of being able to pull off the deception/stealth and slight of hand checks to make the initial attack undetected. That said, if you do manage it, you should be rewarded by actually getting to make the attack.
And part of pulling it off successfully is winning the initiative. If you do that, you get to make the attack first.

Edit: you also get to make the attack first if your side surprises that enemy, even if you lose the initiative. But they get reactions in that case.

[mephnick]

People must just have games full of players shouting "I DECLARE...COMBAAAT" and getting free attacks because they shouted it first. If you want to be quick on the draw and get your attacks off first, make a character with high initiative. That's literally what the mechanic is abstracting.

[ad_hoc]

This is why I would usually allow the first attack (and only the first attack) to happen before initiative is rolled. As before then, there's nothing for people to react to so it doesn't matter how good their reactions are. After that, the side that had planned it would likely get advantage on their initiative but it would really have to be unexpected for anyone to actually be surprised.

A Monk catching an unseen arrow just be it strikes them is a classic trope.

Another common example in D&D is a Wizard casting Shield. They are reacting to the attack itself in a split-second.

Assassin was also designed with the actual rules in mind. Your houserule is a huge buff to Assassins.

Your houserule makes combat less exciting and more mundane, and encourages players to yell "I attack" at the first mention of another creature.

[Lunali]

Your houserule makes combat less exciting and more mundane, and encourages players to yell "I attack" at the first mention of another creature.

This rule would only apply in situations where both parties are already aware of each other and not in combat.

[Tanarii]

This rule would only apply in situations where both parties are already aware of each other and not in combat.
It is still players declaring an outcome, as opposed to declaring an intent.

If a group does a good job of setting things up in a way that their enemies should potentially be unable to act, give them some kind of suprise check. If they do it very well, give them advantage on their check and/or the enemy disadvantage. If their enemy thoroughly engrossed in another task, so they are not paying any attention to threats, they may not even get to use certain scores and automatically fail. For example someone Tracking cannot use passive perception.

If an individual player sets things up so thry are almost certain to act before their opponent, give them advantage on initiative if you feel it fits. Pointing a loaded crossbow at someone's head for example. If the opponent is somehow going to be slower to react, give them disadvantage.

There are tools you can use to modify the outcomes without breaking the intent entirely.

[Xetheral]

I encountered a problem in my last campaign where the hot-tempered character also had one of the lowest initiatives. When she tried to initiate combat unexpectedly, other PCs would roll higher and either attack the enemy first (often defeating it if this wasn't a challenging encounter), or spend their actions trying to talk down the brash character. This seemed strained and unrealistic to us and was no fun for the player of the brash character.

So I instituted a house rule that if only one character (on either side) wants to initiate hostilities, they automatically win initiative. This isn't a question of who shouts it first: if multiple characters want combat to start, we roll initiative as normal.

This also addresses the (surprising common) circumstance where the PCs who beat an aggressor enemy on initiative all pass on their first action because they don't want to be the ones to break the peace. With the house rule, they still get to go after the aggressor takes its turn, but also aren't penalized for rolling higher than the enemy by having to skip an entire turn. (We treat Ready as having a visible component (e.g. drawing back a bow), so it doesn't help avoid appearing as the agressor in this circumstance.)

[mephnick]

So I instituted a house rule that if only one character (on either side) wants to initiate hostilities, they automatically win initiative.

So the defender has no chance to act quicker and is just ****ed because of a brash player? What if I want there to be peace and want to stop the brash player from doing something stupid by grabbing them before they can act? Do we both get free actions or does everyone roll initiative?

[Xetheral]

So the defender has no chance to act quicker and is just ****ed because of a brash player?

If the defender doesn't want hostilities to break out, then yes. The attacker goes first. (The defender can still take reactions unless they are surprised.) At my table (where the initiative sequence mirrors the causal sequence in the game world) this is actually to a fast defender's benefit, so that they don't feel compelled to pass on their first turn due to not having been attacked yet.


What if I want there to be peace and want to stop the brash player from doing something stupid by grabbing them before they can act? Do we both get free actions or does everyone roll initiative?

I don't permit PVP at my table (in most campaigns anyway), so grabbing the other PC wouldn't be allowed. I want all players to be able to impact the narrative, and giving one player veto power over another's choices isn't in keeping with that goal.

Also, my recent games have tended to feature the party almost exclusively pursuing non-violent resolution, which some of the players find boring. Allowing them to initiate combat on their own without being subject to restraint from the other characters helps fix this. Finally, it's realistic: if only one person wants to initiate combat, they (by definition) are going to be the first to take a violent action.

This is a house rule I've used with success at my table, and the players have all liked it (indeed, we came up with it collectively). I'm not suggesting that other tables should adopt it.

[mephnick]

I don't permit PVP at my table (in most campaigns anyway), so grabbing the other PC wouldn't be allowed. I want all players to be able to impact the narrative, and giving one player veto power over another's choices isn't in keeping with that goal..

But you just gave one brash player veto power over the entire group by decreeing their brash decision automatically successful..

[Xetheral]

But you just gave one brash player veto power over the entire group by decreeing their brash decision automatically successful..

That's a good point. I did not word my explanation well by phrasing it in terms of impact on the narrative. I'll try to clarify:

I don't see letting one player ruin another character's (or the group's) plans as being nearly as problematic as vetoing the other characters' actions. It's a subtle distinction, but one I consider important.

Just as the brash character can't force the non-violent characters to be violent, the non-violent characters can't stop the brash character from being violent. In this particular case, however, as in real life, a situation can only remain peaceable if every participant refrains from violence. Thus, the player of the brash character (realistically) has more power in this situation to affect the outcome of the plans of the non-violent characters than vice-versa.

Given that this was a game with too little combat, I'm ok with that imbalance. It lead to lots of great roleplaying between the PCs before encounters, giving spotlight time to the player of a character that was being forced into the background by the party's non-violent approach. With the house rule, the group had to make sure to take the brash character's preferences into account. In turn, the player of the brash character judiciously used the ability to force combat.

In a different situation where a brash character was constantly forcing combat, I'd want to have another conversation with the players about potential changes to ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves.

[Maelynn]

But you just gave one brash player veto power over the entire group by decreeing their brash decision automatically successful..


What if I want there to be peace and want to stop the brash player from doing something stupid by grabbing them before they can act?

Let's turn that around - you'd give other players veto powers over someone else's (brash) decision?

What about the cheeky Bard insulting the queen? Would you allow another player to clamp their hand over his mouth to prevent him from ruining the diplomatic mission?

What about the Wizard who casts a Fireball into the bandit camp before the Rogue has had a chance to sneak up on the closest bandit? Would you allow the party to grab the Wizard's hands, just so he won't ruin the plan the others had come up with?

You say you want peace. Well, the other player wants to sock the guy in front of them. If they decide to go ahead without as much as a warning to the others, then I'd agree with Xetheral to just let that happen. Player agency isn't just for the DM to respect, but for the others as well. Of course, if it happens too often I'd have a chat with the players to make sure it doesn't become disruptive.

[Tanarii]

If the defender doesn't want hostilities to break out, then yes. The attacker goes first. (The defender can still take reactions unless they are surprised.) At my table (where the initiative sequence mirrors the causal sequence in the game world) this is actually to a fast defender's benefit, so that they don't feel compelled to pass on their first turn due to not having been attacked yet.Intitiative is cyclical. If the defender passes, they still get to act before the attacker acts a second time either way.

The advantage of rolling initiative is the defender gets to see the (mechanically very slow) attacker telegraph his or her move, and respond by attacking first. Which means rolling initiative mirrors the causal sequence in the game world better than your way. (exit: not really better. But I'm demonstrating that you're unnecessarily trying to work backwards from game world to breaking game rules, instead of forward from game rules to why it makes sense in the game world.)

That's what initiative at the start of combat can easily be in the game world. Someone telegraphs they're going to attack, and everyone reacts at once. Some faster than others, including the person that started the mess possibly getting gunned ... excuse me, cut down before they can complete the act.

Now if someone has a loaded projectile weapon pointed at another person and is ready to let go at the first sign of trouble, sure, give that person advantage on their initiative roll to reflect that they'll be reacting faster than anyone. Whether they are the initiator of combat or not, they're still going to react faster than normal.

[Darth Ultron]

What constitutes Surprise?

Is it, being completely unaware of an attack?

Or is it a few second delay in reacting because something happened you weren't expecting?


I think this is the basic problem.

The unaware attack is fairly easy, and just about everyone can agree on unaware surprise.

The rules don't really seem to support the delay surprise though. No character in the game will be ''delayed'', no matter what. The ''no delay'' does work for adventurers and people living by their wits or otherwise outside civilization. It does seem like a bit much for that to cover the whole world though.

[Xetheral]

Intitiative is cyclical. If the defender passes, they still get to act before the attacker acts a second time either way.

True, but they also act after all the slower characters, and that feels like a penalty for going quickly. (Multiple players have told me as much, and I tend agree with them.)


The advantage of rolling initiative is the defender gets to see the (mechanically very slow) attacker telegraph his or her move, and respond by attacking first. Which means rolling initiative mirrors the causal sequence in the game world better than your way. (exit: not really better. But I'm demonstrating that you're unnecessarily trying to work backwards from game world to breaking game rules, instead of forward from game rules to why it makes sense in the game world.)

That's what initiative at the start of combat can easily be in the game world. Someone telegraphs they're going to attack, and everyone reacts at once. Some faster than others, including the person that started the mess possibly getting gunned ... excuse me, cut down before they can complete the act.

Now if someone has a loaded projectile weapon pointed at another person and is ready to let go at the first sign of trouble, sure, give that person advantage on their initiative roll to reflect that they'll be reacting faster than anyone. Whether they are the initiator of combat or not, they're still going to react faster than normal.

In a situation where hostilities break out generally, your suggested visualization works well because it explains the sequential order of action resolution despite everyone intending to act more-or-less simultaneously. But in a situation where one combatant is starting combat unilaterally (particularly if it is also unexpectedly), it makes zero sense to have that character end up going last. In this situation, everyone else is reacting to the unilateral attack, so to me it makes sense for their actions to follow the unilateral attack both temporally and causally.

Example: a combat starts when the Barbarian charges the foppish oaf, but because the Barbarian rolled last in initiative the oaf is already dead, so the Barbarian... what, charges a different antagonist?? So the action that supposedly started combat in the first place doesn't happen? (And if there are no other opponents to attack, it really sucks to be the player of the Barbarian who doesn't get to participate in the combat they started.)

Sure, realistically in some situations it makes sense for a defender to see the unilateral attack coming and be able (and willing!) to strike pre-emptively, but initiative is a crude enough mechanic that it leads to such a situation far more often than I think is reasonable. Yes, my houserule largely removes it as a possibility (other than any Reactions, anyway), but I find that preferable to having it occur too often, particularly given all the other benefits my table has seen from the houserule.

Also, I'm not breaking any rules: I've explicitly mentioned that my approach is a houserule. (I'm pretty sure you're not in the houserules-are-cheating camp, so I'm not entirely sure where you were going with this.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Odd thought--can a character be surprised by his ally?

Consider the following.

M NPCs, all of which act completely non-threatening.
N-1 PCs, all of which are parlaying in earnest and in good faith.

1 Joker PC, who decides to throw a bomb/drop a spell/pull a weapon. He does so without (in-character) telling anyone else.

Could you handle it by having everyone except the Joker roll Wisdom (Insight) vs the Joker's Charisma (Deception) (or something like that)? Anyone who fails is surprised no matter which side they're on? No one saw a threat (except the Joker), so everyone meets the official qualifications for surprise.

Wouldn't that meet both sides in the middle for the sudden hostilities scenario? Those PCs perceptive enough to figure out what's happening have a chance to react/act first--if everyone's really surprised then the Joker is the first to act.

And if the whole party's in on it, then there's a lot more chance for the enemy to pick up on something (insight vs the lowest deception result, since all you need to know is that there is a threat).

[Tanarii]

If a barbarian starts charging a foppish oaf, everyone can react to it in initiative order. Plenty of time to react to that.

About the only time someone might not have time to react to someone doing something is a loaded projectile weapon already pointed at someone being triggered. And even then, the person doing the triggering might telegraph what they're about to do. Give them advantage on Intiative. If no one else is watching them in particular, you could even give everyone else disadvantage. If they can win, they do it without telgraphing. If they have a low init bonus & rolls, they telegraphed the action.

As far as "surprising" your allies ... sure you can. Win initiative.

All of this is resolving intent to "strike first" via the intended mechanic. If someone has an a good chance of pulling it off in the situation, give them advantage on the roll. If they would be slower to react, disadvantage. But don't make it automatic. That's just giving whomever declares intent first a freebie.

[Malifice]

There is such a thing as being surprised, it sounded like you were saying there wasn't. Surprise gives the surpiser the ability to act before the surprisee, however they are describing it through rules-language. To me, that is the same as "missing a turn". If the surprised gets to react to the surpriser, there might as well be no surprise. Your initiative order shouldn't matter. I disagree with the reading that gives you the ability to take reactions before or during the time the surprise action is delivered.

It matters for reactions, and it also matters for characters with the alert feat.

[Xetheral]

If a barbarian starts charging a foppish oaf, everyone can react to it in initiative order. Plenty of time to react to that.

Not until the Barbarian actually charges, however, which doesn't happen until their turn. See the causality problems I described above if "charge the foppish oaf" is no longer a valid action when the Barbarian's turn comes up. (I think we may be interpreting quite differently the abstraction that is sequential combat.)


All of this is resolving intent to "strike first" via the intended mechanic. If someone has an a good chance of pulling it off in the situation, give them advantage on the roll. If they would be slower to react, disadvantage. But don't make it automatic. That's just giving whomever declares intent first a freebie.

Which is why I only apply this houserule when only a single character wants to declare an attack at all.

Applying advantage and disadvantage would simply make the situations I'm trying to avoid less common. Instead, my houserule completely solves the problem at my table, and the small costs of doing so are acceptable to us.

[Malifice]

Not until the Barbarian actually charges, however, which doesn't happen until their turn.

No, the Barbarian is charging for the entire round. The action just doesn't get resolved till their turn.

People aren't just standing around the battlefield frozen in time while other people move and attack and do stuff. The reality is they are all moving and doing stuff simultaneously. Initiative simply models who gets to resolve that action fractionally before someone else.

When your Barbarian screams 'I charge the Orc and stab him in the face' then he starts to leap forward with his weapon drawn (and initiative is rolled between him and the Orc).

If the Orc goes first and (on its turn) it needs to cross 20'of space and reach the Barbarian (i.e. it moves 20' and takes the Attack action) the DM declares 'The Orc meets your charge head on, and you clash weapons, it roars and swings its axe at you (rolls attack).' If the Barbarian won initiative, then the DM instead says 'You leap forwards, screaming in rage and your weapons clash with the Orc, axe meeting axe. You bring your axe down in a furious arc (roll your attack).'

Stop thinking of the characters as models on a board acting stop-start, and start thinking of them as combatants acting largely simultaneously (which is what is actually happening).


See the causality problems I described above if "charge the foppish oaf" is no longer a valid action when the Barbarian's turn comes up.

There aren't any causality problems.

Scenario: Barbarian and 3 other PCs are talking to some Orcs when the Barb declares a charge.

Resolution:

DM narrates 'The Barbarian screams a battle cry and springs forward towards the Orc; the Orcs eyes open wide as it snarls in return. Roll initiative.

Presume (worst case scenario) all of the other PCs AND the Orc go before the Barbarian.

2) PC 2 casts Bless. PC 3 nocks and shoots an arrow (hitting the Orc). PC 3 casts Sleep, dropping the Orc.

DM narrates 'You've barely taken a step or two towards the Orc, when a surge of holy power overtakes you, and an arrow from the Ranger wizzes over your head striking the Orc. You glance over your shoulder to see your Wizard buddy also working his magic; turning back to the Orc you notice its eyes close and it collapses to the floor. What do you do?'

See how its a problem not with causality, but simply with your ability to narrate six seconds of near simultaneous activity?

[Xetheral]

See how its a problem not with causality, but simply with your ability to narrate six seconds of near simultaneous activity?

Your condescension is unwelcome. Please stop.

I am well aware that action proceeds simultaneously within a turn. And I am well aware that the standard initiative system allows (in the first round) faster characters to declare actions with the foreknowledge of the action declaration that started combat.

In specific, limited circumstances (described in detail upthread) I simply don't like that aspect of the initiative system and decided (with my players) to houserule it at my table. That should be the end of it. If you have questions about my houserule or my motivations, I'm happy to discuss them with you. But please don't try convince me my houserule is somehow wrong. It works for us, and we've had great results with it, and ultimately that's what matters.

[Tanarii]

Not until the Barbarian actually charges, however, which doesn't happen until their turn. See the causality problems I described above if "charge the foppish oaf" is no longer a valid action when the Barbarian's turn comes up. (I think we may be interpreting quite differently the abstraction that is sequential combat.)

Which is why I only apply this houserule when only a single character wants to declare an attack at all.

Applying advantage and disadvantage would simply make the situations I'm trying to avoid less common. Instead, my houserule completely solves the problem at my table, and the small costs of doing so are acceptable to us.
So you skip rolling initiative when only a single creature wants to declare an attack in the first round of combat.

That actually makes perfect sense.

[ad_hoc]

See how its a problem not with causality, but simply with your ability to narrate six seconds of near simultaneous activity?

Could it also be that people are assuming that when a player declares something it means it just happens?

At our table players declare intent. Then the DM decides what happens and when.

A similar thing happens in exploration. I've seen threads where people complain that Help and Guidance are automatic for each character with whatever it is they are doing. I think this is because the DM asks everyone what they are doing and resolves them in turn.

So player 1 says they are going to investigate the bookshelf. Then that is resolved. Then it is on to player 2. The problem here is that in the narrative they have constructed the bookshelf investigation was completed while the rest of the characters stood around and didn't do anything.

At our table once a scene is set every player declares what they are doing in turn. Then the DM decides how the resolution of those unfold as they fit. If a character is guarding a door/keeping watch they can't also help with investigation. If they want to help they aren't doing anything else. The DM then decides when to declare that time has passed. Usually this is just when all actions have been resolved. Sometimes circumstances change and the DM asks everyone what they are doing now that something has changed.


Another thing that might be going on is trouble with the transition to 'round time'. The reason the game has things like initiative and such is to allow for this transition. Removing it is what makes the narrative not make any sense.

If this is hard to visualize then I suggest looking at action movies. Look at the scenes where action breaks out. Sometimes the instigating character does something first, sometimes someone else beats them to the punch. Someone shoots first.

[Xetheral]

So you skip rolling initiative when only a single creature wants to declare an attack in the first round of combat.

That actually makes perfect sense.

I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes. That's a much more succinct way to communicate what I was trying to express. Thanks! :)

I'd add a little more nuance: I'll still use the houserule if others want to declare attacks in the first round, so long as they only want to declare after that single creature takes its turn. One could also say that my houserule is equivalent to letting everyone delay their initiative on the first round until after that single creature takes its turn.

(I think the reasons why players would want to do this in the first place stem from my table's apparently-idiosyncratic approach to turn-based combat.)

[willdaBEAST]

I'd add a little more nuance: I'll still use the houserule if others want to declare attacks in the first round, so long as they only want to declare after that single creature takes its turn. One could also say that my houserule is equivalent to letting everyone delay their initiative on the first round until after that single creature takes its turn.

(I think the reasons why players would want to do this in the first place stem from my table's apparently-idiosyncratic approach to turn-based combat.)

What I like about the forced initiative roll even during unilateral actions stemming from a brash character is that a lot of variables influence these moments. Maybe the brash character is telegraphing their aggression in ways they don't realize (clenching jaws or fists), maybe they can't draw their weapon fluidly, or someone gets in their way accidentally, etc. As a player I greatly appreciate being able to at least attempt to assuay a brash party member. Just as it's in character for an aggressive barbarian to not want to diplomatically talk out a situation, it's in character for a companion of a loose cannon to be well aware of their tendencies. I'm pretty sure all of us know someone with a bad temper, you can often read when they're about to explode.

You're welcome to house rule however you want, but I think your ruling here punishes investment in dexterity or initiative boosting traits/feats/abilities. It's a way for big strong slow PCs to attack or grapple agile slippery NPCs/antagonists that would normally act first. How would this interact with the feat alert? Or do you hand wave that by never giving abilities like that to NPCs?

I have no problem weighing initiative or giving advantage to the roll if the brash PC can think of something that makes their attack plausible, whether it's a distraction they create or take advantage of. For example if your players are in some kind of diplomatic meeting and as the DM I describe a loud commotion nearby and a player says "I want to attack their leader while they're distracted", that makes perfect sense to me and they should have some kind of bonus to their initiative. Walking up to a hostile NPC, drawing a dagger and stabbing them in the heart shouldn't be automatic imo. Even adding a detail like, I have a Travis Bickle like contraption on my arm that extends a dagger hidden in my sleeve makes that more plausible to me. Or say the attack coming from the least likely character. The wrinkled, frail priest is going to be disarming to most people; a hulking fighter is going to raise people's guard.

[Xetheral]

What I like about the forced initiative roll even during unilateral actions stemming from a brash character is that a lot of variables influence these moments. Maybe the brash character is telegraphing their aggression in ways they don't realize (clenching jaws or fists), maybe they can't draw their weapon fluidly, or someone gets in their way accidentally, etc. As a player I greatly appreciate being able to at least attempt to assuay a brash party member. Just as it's in character for an aggressive barbarian to not want to diplomatically talk out a situation, it's in character for a companion of a loose cannon to be well aware of their tendencies. I'm pretty sure all of us know someone with a bad temper, you can often read when they're about to explode.

Characters are absolutely welcome to try to talk down the brash character, up until the point where the brash character declares an attack. After that, further interaction has to be done as part of the initiative sequence. The only situation of this type that my houserule prevents is the situation where characters don't start trying to talk down their brash friend until after the attack has been declared. (Preventing that situation is, from my perspective, a positive thing.)


You're welcome to house rule however you want, but I think your ruling here punishes investment in dexterity or initiative boosting traits/feats/abilities. It's a way for big strong slow PCs to attack or grapple agile slippery NPCs/antagonists that would normally act first. How would this interact with the feat alert? Or do you hand wave that by never giving abilities like that to NPCs?

I frequently build NPCs using PC rules, so Alert is a definite possibility. It doesn't matter though, because if I determine that the NPC wants to attack first, then my houserule doesn't apply and I'll roll initiative as normal.

[Malifice]

I frequently build NPCs using PC rules, so Alert is a definite possibility. It doesn't matter though, because if I determine that the NPC wants to attack first, then my houserule doesn't apply and I'll roll initiative as normal.

What if the NPC wants to attack, and the players don't?

Does your NPC get to resolve a free round of combat 'outside of combat' as well?

[Xetheral]

What if the NPC wants to attack, and the players don't?

If the players don't want to attack first, then the houserule kicks in and the NPC wins initiative. The PCs get to roll to determine the order in which they take their turns after the NPC.

This has come up in game where the PCs were goading the NPC into attacking first in front of witnesses.


Does your NPC get to resolve a free round of combat 'outside of combat' as well?

No one gets rounds outside of combat. The only thing my houserule can do is put someone first in the initiative order, and only if no one else wants to go first.

[Malifice]

If the players don't want to attack first, then the houserule kicks in and the NPC wins initiative. The PCs get to roll to determine the order in which they take their turns after the NPC.

If the PCs don't want to attack first, is there any reason why you don't just determine initiative normally and then any PCs that won initiative simply take the Dodge action (or some other action other than attacking, like a skill check to calm down the attacking NPC, or move etc) when their turns come up?

Why is there a need for a house-rule here?

You might argue that a PC might win initiative, and then decide to attack first, but if that's the case, again why aren't you simply using initiative order?

[Xetheral]

If the PCs don't want to attack first, is there any reason why you don't just determine initiative normally and then any PCs that won initiative simply take the Dodge action (or some other action other than attacking, like a skill check to calm down the attacking NPC, or move etc) when their turns come up?

Why is there a need for a house-rule here?

You might argue that a PC might win initiative, and then decide to attack first, but if that's the case, again why aren't you simply using initiative order?

The problem I have with asking (up to) all the characters except one to simply take the Dodge (or some other action) is twofold:

It disadvantages those players for rolling high on initiative by effectively moving them to the end of the cyclical initiative order. My houserule lets such fast characters instead act immediately after the attacker. (Admittedly, this is a trade-off: some characters might prefer the ability to Dodge, if they felt they had sufficient in-character reason to take that action at that time.)
The action declaration that triggered combat isn't fixed yet. When the sole attacker's turn arrives, that character could well decide to take a different action based on the actions of the faster characters. Accordingly, I'd be asking the faster characters to base their action decisions on a description of an action (e.g. brash PC starts to charge, cast a spell, etc.) that might never happen. Alternatively, I could houserule to require the attacking character to follow-through on their originally-stated intent, but that seems to be an unnecessarily punitive consequence for being the one to initiate combat (especially in a game where I was trying to increase the amount of combat). In no other circumstances does a character have to declare their actions prior to other characters taking a turn, so it would be bizarre to require it in this situation.

[Tanarii]

The combat swoosh can be slightly problematic if youre trying to explicity model something other than a combat swoosh. :)

[Xetheral]

The combat swoosh can be slightly problematic if youre trying to explicity model something other than a combat swoosh. :)

What is a combat swoosh? :)

[Tanarii]

What is a combat swoosh? :)
Its originally a term from Final Fantasy. You're walking around in the world map and *swoosh* now youre in combat mode.

D&D has had the combat swoosh since at least 2e. 1e and B/X even depending on how you read the rules. It happens when you roll initiative to begin combat. And people have struggled with it, and allowing attacks outside of combat & initiative house rules, at least that long. Mostly because of points of view like yours, that certain in game circumstances must be modeled a certain way, and thus must result in a specific initiative order.

Personally I just accept there is a swoosh. I dont worry about modeling anything because I can always come up with a rational in game reason for the results of initiative rolls, ie from abstract rule to in game description instead of from in game situation to siluation rule. And instead concentrate on minimizing the sudden jarring transition aspect so it feels less swooshy.

[Xetheral]

Its originally a term from Final Fantasy. You're walking around in the world map and *swoosh* now youre in combat mode.

D&D has had the combat swoosh since at least 2e. 1e and B/X even depending on how you read the rules. It happens when you roll initiative to begin combat. And people have struggled with it, and allowing attacks outside of combat & initiative house rules, at least that long. Mostly because of points of view like yours, that certain in game circumstances must be modeled a certain way, and thus must result in a specific initiative order.

Personally I just accept there is a swoosh. I dont worry about modeling anything because I can always come up with a rational in game reason for the results of initiative rolls, ie from abstract rule to in game description instead of from in game situation to siluation rule. And instead concentrate on minimizing the sudden jarring transition aspect so it feels less swooshy.

Fascinating. Yup, you're exactly right: I find the combat swoosh problematic because I'm trying to model something else entirely. :)

[ad_hoc]

Personally I just accept there is a swoosh. I dont worry about modeling anything because I can always come up with a rational in game reason for the results of initiative rolls, ie from abstract rule to in game description instead of from in game situation to siluation rule. And instead concentrate on minimizing the sudden jarring transition aspect so it feels less swooshy.

Yeah.

Maybe it would be easier if people keep in mind that Initiative is a Dexterity ability check. The player declares their intention and then the DM asks them to make an ability check opposed by other characters. If they win they successfully do the thing, if they don't, others beat them to it.

In a scripted story the author just decides what happens. In a group game everyone is part author. In a game like D&D luck is introduced to make the outcome of the story not scripted by the group.

If a player says 'my character hits the orc' and the group skips initiative they might as well also skip attack rolls. It's the same thing.

[Tanarii]

Fascinating. Yup, you're exactly right: I find the combat swoosh problematic because I'm trying to model something else entirely. :)
I find it problematic because it's jarring to go from not turned based and free form to turn based and (mostly) specific actions.

Also because the swoosh is mighty slow and torturous if you have to sit there watching the DM set up a battle mat and draw lines all over it and lay out the monsters token etc.

No one wants to sit there watching a "Loading ..." screen for 3-5 minutes every time they hit a Combat Swoosh.

[ad_hoc]

I find it problematic because it's jarring to go from not turned based and free form to turn based and (mostly) specific actions.


At our table everything is turn based, the turns just take longer in game time.

In each scene every player declares what they are doing. Then the DM announces what happens in an order that makes sense (though mostly in the same order they are declared if multiple actions take the same amount of time.) If one action is much shorter than the others that player gets to choose something new, though the DM usually advises them of this first and asks them to declare an additional thing.

Then 1 of 2 things happen. Something happens and the PCs react to it (the players then all say what they want to do as before). Or, the DM declares that time has passed (usually goes without saying as actions have been resolved that take time) and the players must decide what to do next. This is usually to move on as they don't want Bad Things to happen and want to accomplish what they are there to accomplish, which if their PCs just stand around might pass them by.

So everything is turn based. The turns just take more in game time. This even applies when the PCs are on the move. Each player must declare what their PC is doing as they go (lookout, tracking, navigation, etc.).

[darknite]

Sure, social surprise can happen. But it really has to be surprising. The case of 'trusting orcs' put forward by the OP doesn't make muster for me, however.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At our table everything is turn based, the turns just take longer in game time.

In each scene every player declares what they are doing. Then the DM announces what happens in an order that makes sense (though mostly in the same order they are declared if multiple actions take the same amount of time.) If one action is much shorter than the others that player gets to choose something new, though the DM usually advises them of this first and asks them to declare an additional thing.

Then 1 of 2 things happen. Something happens and the PCs react to it (the players then all say what they want to do as before). Or, the DM declares that time has passed (usually goes without saying as actions have been resolved that take time) and the players must decide what to do next. This is usually to move on as they don't want Bad Things to happen and want to accomplish what they are there to accomplish, which if their PCs just stand around might pass them by.

So everything is turn based. The turns just take more in game time. This even applies when the PCs are on the move. Each player must declare what their PC is doing as they go (lookout, tracking, navigation, etc.).

I do the same thing, because that's the fundamental flow of the game--

DO:
* Describe scene
* Player states intended action
* Resolve action
* Describe changes
END DO

To keep people from getting bored, I interleave the turns--

"John, what are you doing?"
"Ok, while John's doing that, what is Bob doing?"
And then resolve them in whatever order seems right. Multiple short actions may occur in parallel with one longer one, but I try to not let anyone take two actions while someone else is stuck in limbo (hasn't declared an intended action yet).

[Tanarii]

Non-combat being "turn-based" is usually fundamentally different though. It's typically far more free form. No specific order, different players taking different lengths of "turns", etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Non-combat being "turn-based" is usually fundamentally different though. It's typically far more free form. No specific order, different players taking different lengths of "turns", etc.

Not really, in my experience. Combat is more nailed down because it can easily result in character loss. Other than that, it's just shorter turns.

I play mostly with teenagers who have to be kept (procedurally) on a tight leash since they don't share spotlight well, so that may be part of it.

And different things should be different. What works well on a time-scale of minutes doesn't work well on a time-scale of seconds.

[Tanarii]

Not really, in my experience. Combat is more nailed down because it can easily result in character loss. Other than that, it's just shorter turns.

I play mostly with teenagers who have to be kept (procedurally) on a tight leash since they don't share spotlight well, so that may be part of it.I don't think I've played a game that tightly leashed without a designated Party Caller. It's not common IMX. Not that there's anything wrong with it. And I definitely run a 6 person party differently from a 3 person one.


And different things should be different. What works well on a time-scale of minutes doesn't work well on a time-scale of seconds.
For sure. I agree they have different needs. My point was that switching between the two can cause a momentary disconnect, especially if you take time to set up a battlefield. If you don't do that (ToTM) it's easier to reduce the 'swoosh' with good description. But even so, as soon as the players roll initiative they still feel that sudden switch, a change in the frame of reference, in their heads.

There's some benefit to that of course. If done right, it helps with both pacing and tension. But if done poorly, it can destroy both.